Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision 

Prepared by

April 2021
This page intentionally left blank.
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision i 

APRIL 2021

Contents 

Part 1: Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement.................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 Errata Sheets and Combined FEIS/ROD.......................................................................................... 1-5 

1.3 Tiered NEPA Process....................................................................................................................... 1-6 

1.4 Preferred Alternative...................................................................................................................... 1-7 

1.5 Overview of Public and Agency Outreach and Coordination Since Release of the Tier 1 DEIS...... 1-8 

1.6 Tier 1 DEIS Errata Table ................................................................................................................ 1-10 

Part 2: Tier 1 Record of Decision .................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 Tier 1 EIS Process for the Project.................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.3 Purpose and Need for the Project.................................................................................................. 2-2 

2.4 Alternatives Considered in the Tier 1 DEIS..................................................................................... 2-3 

2.5 Identification of the Selected Alternative ...................................................................................... 2-3 

2.6 Preliminary Mitigation Assessment and Strategy .......................................................................... 2-9 

2.7 Environmentally Preferable Alternative....................................................................................... 2-15 

2.8 FRA Decision ................................................................................................................................. 2-15

Appendices

A Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

B Public and Agency Involvement Summary Report 

C Public and Agency Comments and Responses 

D Revised DEIS Sections
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision ii

APRIL 2021

This page intentionally left blank.
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 

Prepared by

April 2021 
This page intentionally left blank.
RPD-210407-001

April 14, 2021
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

ABSTRACT 

This Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) evaluates for the Oregon Passenger Rail Project 

(Project). Because the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is only modifying the Tier 1 Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in response to comments that are minor and limited to factual 

corrections or explanations of why the comments do not warrant additional agency response, FRA is issuing 

the FEIS using errata sheets. FRA’s use of the combined FEIS/Record of Decision (ROD) and errata sheets is 

consistent with 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 304a.

1

The primary purpose of the FEIS is to present responses from FRA and the Oregon Department of 

Transportation (ODOT) to public and agency comments received on the Tier 1 DEIS for the Project, which 

was published in October 2018. 

This Tier 1 FEIS/ROD evaluates alternatives for improved passenger rail service for the 130-mile north-south 

corridor between Eugene-Springfield and Portland, Oregon. A No Action Alternative and two Build 

Alternatives are evaluated. The Build Alternatives would provide improved passenger rail service to meet 

future intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce journey times and improve connections with 

regional public transit services. FRA and ODOT identified Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative in the 

DEIS. Alternative 1 remains the Preferred Alternative in this FEIS/ROD. 

1 For FRA, the statutory authority for a combined FEIS/ROD originates with Section 1319 of the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Public Law 112-141). On December 4, 2015, the Fixing America’s Surface

Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Public Law 114-94) was signed into law. Its provisions became effective on October 1, 

2015, after the DEIS for this Project was initiated. Section 1304(j) repealed Section 1319 of MAP-21 but included a new 

provision providing FRA with similar authority. This authority was codified in 49 U.S.C. 304a. 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 - i 

APRIL 2021

Contents

Part 1: Final Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Key Concepts and Terminology .............................................................................................. 1-2 

1.1.2 Contents of this Combined Tier 1 FEIS/ROD........................................................................... 1-4

1.2 Errata Sheets and Combined FEIS/ROD.......................................................................................... 1-5

1.2.1 Use of Errata Table and Sheets............................................................................................... 1-5

1.2.2 Combined Tier 1 FEIS/ROD ..................................................................................................... 1-5

1.3 Tiered NEPA Process....................................................................................................................... 1-6

1.4 Preferred Alternative...................................................................................................................... 1-7

1.5 Overview of Public and Agency Outreach and Coordination Since Release of the Tier 1 DEIS...... 1-8

1.5.1 Distribution of the Tier 1 DEIS ................................................................................................ 1-8

1.5.2 Public Meetings/Open Houses............................................................................................... 1-9

1.5.3 Additional Public Outreach Activities..................................................................................... 1-9

1.5.4 Comments and Responses on the Tier 1 DEIS...................................................................... 1-10

1.6 Tier 1 DEIS Errata Table ................................................................................................................ 1-10

References................................................................................................................................................ 1-13

Figures

Figure 1-1. Oregon Passenger Rail Study Area and Existing Route ................................................................ 1-3

Tables

Table 1-1: Public Hearing and Open House Events Held During DEIS Public Comment Period..................... 1-9

Table 1-2: Tier 1 DEIS Errata Table ............................................................................................................... 1-11

Appendices 

A Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

B Public and Agency Involvement Summary Report 

C Public and Agency Comments and Responses 

D Revised DEIS Sections
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 -ii

APRIL 2021

Acronyms and Abbreviations

BNSF BNSF Railway

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIP Corridor Investment Plan

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency

FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

N/A not applicable

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation 

PNWRC Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor

ROD Record of Decision

SDP Service Development Plan

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 - 1 

APRIL 2021

Part 1: Final Environmental Impact Statement

1.1 Introduction 

This combined Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) evaluates 

alternatives for improved passenger rail service for the 130-mile corridor between Eugene-Springfield and 

Portland, Oregon. A No Action Alternative and two Build Alternatives were evaluated in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Build Alternatives would provide improved passenger rail 

service to meet future intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce journey times, and improve 

connections with regional public transit services. This FEIS is Part 1 of the combined Tier 1 FEIS and ROD 

(hereinafter referred to as Tier 1 FEIS/ROD). 

The Oregon Passenger Rail Project (the Project) is a planning effort developed under a cooperative 

agreement between the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA). The first phase of the process is the development of a Corridor Investment Plan (CIP). 

The process of completing a CIP consists of conducting an environmental review in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as documented in the Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS), and developing a Service Development Plan (SDP). The SDP is a detailed definition of the service 

improvements and transportation network, and the operational and financial aspects for the alternative for 

passenger rail service that is selected through the NEPA process. The intent of the CIP is to provide 

sufficient information to support future decision-making at the Federal, State and/or local level regarding 

investments in the Oregon segment of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). 

ODOT and FRA used a tiered environmental process for the Project, which is a phased approach to 

environmental review used in the development of complex projects (as provided in 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] 1508.28). The tiered NEPA review and decision-making process allows for a broad-level 

programmatic decision with a first-tier EIS, followed by more specific analyses and decisions through one or 

more second-tier NEPA evaluations. 

The Project’s Tier 1 EIS and the SDP address corridor-level improvements to passenger rail service in the 

Project study area, including the following: 

• Rail corridor – Reasonable and feasible rail alignment improvement alternatives from EugeneSpringfield, OR, to Vancouver, WA

• Service characteristics – Passenger rail operational elements, train speeds, travel time, train 

frequency and train technology

• Potential stations – The general location of potential passenger rail stations

Selection and advancement of project components within the Preferred Alternative as described in this 

Tier 1 FEIS/ROD would require additional planning, design and engineering work, which would be evaluated 

in a Tier 2, or project-level, NEPA document or documents. 

This document contains a combined Tier 1 FEIS/ROD for the Project. The Tier 1 FEIS includes clarifications, 

errata-style edits and specific responses to comments related to information provided in the Tier 1 DEIS, 

and reflects changes noted during the public and agency review and comment period (October 19, 2018, to 

December 18, 2018). This information is presented in a table format. The entire Tier 1 DEIS, including

appendices, is attached as Appendix A. The Tier 1 ROD is presented as Part 2 of this documentation, and 

identifies FRA’s Selected Alternative for the Project, which may be carried forward for further planning, 

design and construction subject to future available funding. 

Subsequent Tier 2 environmental reviews would evaluate more detailed, site-specific proposals 

implementing the Selected Alternative. The Tier 2 NEPA documents would address stand-alone projects 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 - 2 

APRIL 2021

with logical termini and independent utility. In other words, one or more corridor sections that together 

make up the complete passenger rail system could be developed as individual projects. Depending on the 

scope and potential environmental impacts of Tier 2 projects, the appropriate class of Tier 2 NEPA analyses 

may be an EIS, Environmental Assessment, and/or Categorical Exclusion. The specific class of NEPA 

document for more detailed analysis of any Tier 2 section has not yet been defined. Preliminary design and 

environmental studies would be conducted in support of a Tier 2 analysis. Finally, coordination and 

outreach would occur as appropriate during any Tier 2 analysis to engage the public and other 

stakeholders. Input from the outreach effort would be incorporated into the NEPA analysis and into the 

project design if warranted.

The remainder of this section defines key concepts and terminology used in the environmental analyses, 

and presents the overall organization of this combined Tier 1 FEIS/ROD.

1.1.1 Key Concepts and Terminology 

To maintain consistency between the evaluation of the No Action Alternative and the Build Alternatives, 

and the identification of the Preferred Alternative, FRA and ODOT used the same key concepts presented in 

the Tier 1 DEIS for the Tier 1 FEIS/ROD. These key concepts are defined below.

Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor: The PNWRC runs from Eugene, OR, to Vancouver, BC. The PNWRC is one of 

eleven Federally designated high-speed rail corridors in the U.S. The 462-mile PNWRC serves the most 

densely populated areas of the Cascadia megaregion, linking Vancouver, BC, to Seattle, Portland and 

Eugene. The Oregon segment of the PNWRC is approximately 125 miles long, from the Eugene-Springfield 

urban area to Portland. The entire Oregon portion of the PNWRC that comprises the Project study area is 

within the Willamette Valley. In the next 20 years, the population of Oregon’s Willamette Valley is 

projected to grow by approximately 27 percent to reach 3.6 million residents (Oregon DAS, 2015). During 

the same period, freight volume in the state is expected to grow by approximately 60 percent (ODOT, 

2011). These increases will result in transportation demand that exceeds the available freight and 

passenger rail capacity in the Willamette Valley, as both utilize the same rail facilities within the corridor. 

Preferred Alternative: ODOT used the evaluation criteria previously developed and based on the Project 

Goals and Objectives to compare the two Build Alternatives and subsequently identified Alternative 1 as 

the Preferred Alternative. During Project scoping, ODOT conducted an open, interactive process to develop 

the Project Purpose and Need Statement and high-level goals and objectives. ODOT used the Project Goals 

and Objectives to develop an evaluation framework, which served as the basis for the analysis and 

screening of corridor concepts and preliminary alternatives. In association with the technical analyses 

conducted for the DEIS, ODOT used the evaluation framework to compare the alternatives. Based on the 

comparison of performance attributes, ODOT and FRA proposed that Alternative 1 be identified in the DEIS 

as the Preferred Alternative.

Selected Alternative: The Selected Alternative is the alternative selected by FRA in the ROD and will be the 

alternative carried forward for future Tier 2 analysis, as required by NEPA.

Study Area: ODOT and FRA established a preliminary Project study area during the NEPA scoping period in 

fall 2012 (Figure 1-1). The preliminary Project study area was generally bounded by the Eugene- Springfield, 

OR, area to the south and the Oregon-Washington state line (Columbia River) to the north in Vancouver, 

WA. The Cascade foothills bounded the study area to the east, and the Coast Range bounded it to the west. 

This study area was broad enough to encompass a variety of potential rail alignments and potential station 

locations suggested by stakeholders and the public during the scoping period. As corridor concepts and 

potential station locations were considered and eliminated, FRA and ODOT narrowed the study area 

boundaries to assess a more localized range of potential impacts associated with each of the corridor 

concepts. ODOT and FRA also developed discipline- and resource-specific study areas for each 

environmental impact analysis topic studied in the Tier 1 DEIS. 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 - 3 

APRIL 2021

Figure 1-1. Oregon Passenger Rail Study Area and Existing Route 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 - 4 

APRIL 2021

Level of Detail: The level of detail presented in the Tier 1 EIS is consistent with FRA’s tiered environmental 

review process. FRA’s guidance suggests that a tiered NEPA process is appropriate for FRA-funded projects 

where broad program decisions for large expansive corridor programs: (1) are too complex to be addressed 

in one document; (2) are phased over time; (3) do not have fully defined future phases; or (4) have major 

routing or service alternatives that need to be evaluated.

Effects Assessment and Methodologies: The Tier 1 FEIS uses the same effects assessments and 

methodologies, data sources and data sets presented in the Tier 1 DEIS to evaluate the No Action 

Alternative and the Build Alternatives.

Definition of the No Action Alternative: The definition of the No Action Alternative remained the same 

from the Tier 1 DEIS to the Tier 1 FEIS. The No Action Alternative consists of the continuation of the existing 

Amtrak Cascades passenger train route, stations and service between Eugene and Portland. A mix of freight 

and passenger trains currently use the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and BNSF Railway (BNSF) trackage that 

also serves as the Amtrak Cascades route in Oregon. The No Action Alternative also includes all committed 

improvements (that is, projects with dedicated or obligated funding) to the existing intercity passenger rail 

system, the intercity highway system, and other modes of transportation available to the public 

(particularly aviation and intercity bus services) in the Project study area. 

Section 4(f) Evaluation: The Tier 1 EIS identifies properties within the study area that are protected by 

Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Section 4[f]) and Section 6(f) of 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (Section 6[f]), and discusses legal requirements, 

methods of analysis, study area, affected environment, potential environmental impacts and potential 

mitigation strategies. This Tier 1 EIS does not provide the level of detail that FRA would need to make final 

determinations regarding uses of Section 4(f)-protected or Section 6(f)-protected resources. Final decisions 

on specific location and design will be made at the project level, when more detailed information is 

available for analysis, and specific properties can be evaluated for impact and mitigation, if necessary.

Mitigation: In a Tier 1 EIS, potential impacts are identified using high-level data and analysis. For the 

Project, ODOT used existing information on known resources and estimated impacts based on a lesser level 

of engineering than is used at a project-level analysis. Because of this, the available information is not 

detailed enough to formulate site-specific mitigation measures. Therefore, each resource evaluation 

includes a list of potential mitigation strategies that would be considered and further developed in the 

future as part of the Tier 2 or project-specific environmental analysis (see Chapter 4 of the DEIS). 

Representative mitigation strategies listed in Chapter 4 of the DEIS include avoidance and minimization 

measures that could be developed in greater specificity as design of the Project advances. 

1.1.2 Contents of this Combined Tier 1 FEIS/ROD 

This Tier 1 FEIS/ROD contains the Tier 1 FEIS (Part 1), the Tier 1 ROD (Part 2), and the following Tier 1 

FEIS/ROD appendices:

• Appendix A: Tier 1 DEIS and Appendices. 

• Appendix B: Tier 1 DEIS Public and Agency Involvement Summary Report, including materials 

presented to the public during the DEIS public and agency comment period.

• Appendix C: Copies of all correspondence received from Native American Tribes, and Federal, State 

and local agencies, and the public, including letters and emails, during the Tier 1 DEIS public and 

agency review period and a comments and responses matrix that includes responses from FRA and 

ODOT to all comments received during the public comment period. 

• Appendix D: Revised Tier 1 DEIS Sections. FRA and ODOT amended portions of the DEIS based on 

public and agency comments, and based on changes in existing conditions. In this FEIS, Section 1.6, 

Tier 1 DEIS Errata, details the changes made, and Appendix D shows the revised DEIS text. 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 - 5 

APRIL 2021

The Tier 1 FEIS/ROD builds in the Tier 1 DEIS, which was published in October 2018. Appendix A contains 

the Tier 1 DEIS in its entirety, and: 

• Considers all significant issues related to the Project identified during scoping; 

• Establishes the Purpose and Need for the Project; 

• Discloses the alternatives considered and evaluates the alternatives against the Purpose and Need; 

• Discloses all environmental effects potentially associated with the Project’s alternatives, whether 

they are adverse or beneficial; 

• Identifies a Preferred Alternative; and 

• Establishes a public and agency review and comment period for the DEIS, including public meetings 

and how to participate in the public and agency review and comment period. 

The Tier 1 DEIS appendices present detailed technical documentation and relevant coordination materials 

that support the information and findings presented in the Tier 1 DEIS chapters.

FRA indicated in the Tier 1 DEIS that the agency intended to issue a combined FEIS/ROD pursuant to 

provisions under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). 

The Tier 1 FEIS discloses potential environmental effects associated with the Project identified at this early 

phase of project development and whether they are adverse or beneficial, and identifies the Preferred 

Alternative. The Tier 1 FEIS includes all comments received on the Tier 1 DEIS and responds to those 

comments. Responses are in the form of factual corrections or clarifications and are presented as erratastyle edits in a table format attached to the Tier 1 DEIS, which documents the changes made to the DEIS 

that are now reflected in this Tier 1 FEIS/ROD. 

The Tier 1 ROD provides a written public record of FRA’s decision, identifies FRA’s Selected Alternative, 

describes the alternatives considered in the Tier 1 EIS process, and states how FRA’s decision was made. 

The Tier 1 ROD completes the Tier 1 NEPA process and provides the basis for future Tier 2 NEPA studies 

that may occur in subsequent phases of the Project.

1.2 Errata Sheets and Combined FEIS/ROD 

1.2.1 Use of Errata Table and Sheets 

The use of an errata table and sheets in lieu of rewriting the Tier 1 DEIS to a Tier 1 FEIS is appropriate when 

comments received on the Tier 1 DEIS are minor and the responses to those comments are limited to 

factual corrections or explanations of why the comments do not warrant further response. Errata sheets 

are being made available to the public and agencies to the same extent as the Tier 1 DEIS, and ODOT and 

FRA will ensure the Tier 1 DEIS remains available. 

Comments received from the public and agencies require only factual corrections and minor clarifications 

to the Tier 1 DEIS; however, no comments on the Tier 1 DEIS warranted further response in the form of 

additional alternatives or consideration of undisclosed environmental consequences or impacts. The Tier 1 

DEIS is available on the ODOT Project website and FRA’s website, and is included as Appendix A of this 

combined Tier 1 FEIS/ROD. The Tier 1 DEIS errata are included in this combined Tier 1 FEIS/ROD. Section 1.6 

of this FEIS presents the Tier 1 DEIS Errata Table, which indicates where changes were made to the Tier 1 

DEIS document. The revised DEIS sections are included in Appendix D. 

1.2.2 Combined Tier 1 FEIS/ROD

In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations set forth in 40 CFR 1506.10(b)(2), FEIS 

and ROD documents, including Tier 1 FEIS and Tier 1 ROD documents, are typically issued separately, and 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 - 6 

APRIL 2021

there is a minimum 30-day period between the FEIS and the ROD. However, to the maximum extent 

practicable, FRA must develop a combined FEIS/ROD, unless:

• The FEIS or Tier 1 FEIS makes substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to 

environmental or safety concerns, or

• There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and 

that bears on the proposed action or the impacts of the proposed action.

This combined Tier 1 FEIS/ROD for the Project does not include substantial changes to the proposed action 

in terms of environmental or safety concerns, nor are there significant new circumstances or information 

relevant to environmental concerns of the proposed action or its impacts, as set forth in the law.

FRA has determined it is appropriate to issue a combined FEIS/ROD. FRA and ODOT will announce the 

availability of the combined FEIS/ROD on the Project website. In addition, ODOT and FRA will send email 

notifications to the individuals and groups on the Project email list, post the document on the Project 

website, and make a limited number of printed copies available at ODOT offices. 

This combined Tier 1 FEIS/ROD documents the FRA decision on the Project, discusses the Preferred 

Alternative and other alternatives, and explains potential mitigation measures, if required for future project 

actions. Because this is a Tier 1 NEPA document, most mitigation measures represent commitments to 

further assess and refine mitigation requirements and coordinate with the public, resource and regulatory 

agencies, stakeholders, and Native American Tribes during Tier 2 analysis as a rail improvement projectlevel design is developed. FRA and ODOT will make the Tier 1 FEIS/ROD available to the public, and will 

publish it on their respective websites.

1.3 Tiered NEPA Process 

The Project’s Tier 1 EIS is the first of two potential environmental review tiers. The Tier 1 process concludes 

with the publication of this Tier 1 FEIS/ROD. Any required subsequent Tier 2 environmental reviews will 

evaluate more detailed, site-specific rail improvement projects implementing in whole or in part the 

Preferred Alternative selected in the Tier 1 ROD. The Preferred Alternative has a wide variety of phasing 

options. Because the Preferred Alternative follows the existing UPRR rail line between Eugene and 

Portland, infrastructure investments could be separated into relatively small, lower-cost elements, so that 

ODOT could implement the Preferred Alternative incrementally as funding becomes available. ODOT could 

also implement the elements deemed most valuable to support expanded passenger rail service, and 

expand that service incrementally from two round trips to the six round trips that are considered full buildout for the Preferred Alternative. This approach would allow ODOT to add round trips over time as the 

demand for additional passenger rail service grows. To plan and implement phased investments, ODOT 

would coordinate with the host railroad and passenger rail service operator. 

The Tier 2 NEPA documents would address stand-alone projects with logical termini and independent utility

that are part of Selected Alternative identified in the ROD. In other words, one or more corridor sections 

that together make up the complete passenger rail system in Oregon could be developed as individual 

projects. The corresponding study area for each resource would be refined based on more detailed design. 

While the Tier 1 DEIS assessed potential impacts based on previously identified resources, a Tier 2 analysis 

may also include field investigations of previously unsurveyed areas to identify additional resources and 

impacts that are not known at this stage. Detailed design developed for Tier 2 projects would support 

analysis of potential impacts from construction and/or operation of passenger rail improvements and the 

development of specific mitigation measures. The analyses would consider avoidance and minimization of 

impacts on sensitive environmental resources. The following representative list presents the project-level 

analyses that may be required for each Tier 2 NEPA analysis: 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 - 7 

APRIL 2021

• Special status species surveys and wildlife movement studies;

• Wetland delineations and identification of Section 404 permitting requirements;

• Cultural resource surveys and Section 106 consultation;

• Threatened and endangered species surveys and Section 7 consultation;

• Noise and vibration analysis;

• Section 4(f) evaluation;

• Section 6(f) analysis;

• Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments;

• Air emissions analysis in nonattainment areas;

• Station-area traffic studies; 

• Grade crossing and safety analysis; and

• Surveys, infrastructure inspections and engineering design.

ODOT anticipates seeking a combination of Federal and State funding to advance the Project into final 

design and construction, and anticipates that this would be done in phases; however, currently no funding 

has been identified to advance the Project. If ODOT advances the Project into final design and construction 

and Federal funding, Federal permits, and/or other Federal approval(s) are involved, a Tier 2 NEPA analysis, 

led by the appropriate Federal agency, would be required. The scope of such analysis would be based on 

the nature of the Federal action. 

Depending on the scope and potential environmental impacts of Tier 2 projects, as individual stand-alone 

projects that are part of the Preferred Alternative, the appropriate level of Tier 2 NEPA analyses may be an 

EIS, Environmental Assessment, and/or a Categorical Exclusion. Preliminary design and additional 

environmental studies would be conducted in support of a Tier 2 NEPA analysis. Additional coordination 

and outreach would also occur as appropriate during any Tier 2 NEPA analysis to engage the public and 

other stakeholders. Input from the outreach effort would be incorporated into the NEPA analysis and into 

the Tier 2 project design if warranted.

1.4 Preferred Alternative FRA’s and ODOT’s Preferred Alternative is Alternative 1. The Preferred Alternative consists of the existing 

route traveled by Amtrak Coast Starlight and Cascades trains between Eugene, OR, and Vancouver, WA, 

with capital improvements implemented adjacent to the existing Amtrak alignment in specific locations. 

Track modifications or additions would consist of mainline track, sidings, crossovers, switches, signaling and 

communications, and industry connections constructed or reconfigured as needed to optimize freight and 

passenger rail operations throughout the full route. Under the Preferred Alternative, passenger trains 

would continue to share track with freight trains, and the route would serve seven passenger rail round 

trips per day—six on the Amtrak Cascades and one on the Coast Starlight (a “6+1” schedule). Between 

Eugene and Portland, this reflects an increase in the number of trips from the No Action Alternative, which 

would continue to follow the existing schedule (three round trips per day, or a 2+1 schedule). North of 

Portland’s Union Station, the Preferred Alternative would be the same as under the No Action Alternative 

(eight round trips per day, or a 6+2 schedule). The Preferred Alternative would have the same existing 

stations (Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City and Portland) as the No Action Alternative. 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 - 8 

APRIL 2021

1.5 Overview of Public and Agency Outreach and 

Coordination Since Release of the Tier 1 DEIS This section provides an overview of the public and agency outreach and coordination that has occurred 

since the release of the Tier 1 DEIS. Appendix B contains the complete Tier 1 DEIS Public and Agency 

Involvement Summary Report, which provides more detail regarding outreach and coordination activities.

1.5.1 Distribution of the Tier 1 DEIS 

ODOT and FRA released the Tier 1 DEIS for the Project in October 2018 for public review and comment. The 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on 

October 19, 2018 (83 FR 53053). The public was invited to provide comments on the Tier 1 DEIS through 

various opportunities and communication methods from October 18 through December 19, 2018.

The distribution of the Tier 1 DEIS emphasized the use of electronic media to provide cost-effective access

to the public. The Tier 1 DEIS was available on the internet on the ODOT Oregon Passenger Rail Project 

website (http://www.oregonpassengerrail.org) and on the FRA website (http://www.fra.dot.gov/).

Federal agencies, Native American Tribes, state agencies, regional and local agencies, and the other 

selected interested parties and organizations (listed in Appendix B) were sent a link to the electronic copy 

of the DEIS via e-mail. Additional local elected officials and agency representatives, along with others on the 

mailing list (approximately 3,700 contacts), were mailed a notification that included information about how

to access the DEIS; timing for the formal DEIS comment period; and public hearing dates, times and

locations.

In addition, during the public comment period, the public was able to review hard copies of the Tier 1 DEIS 

at multiple locations throughout the Project corridor. Copies were available at the following locations:

Oregon Department of Transportation

ODOT Region 1 Office 

123 NW Flanders Street 

Portland, OR 97209

Oregon Department of Transportation

Transportation Building 

355 Capitol Street NE 

Salem, OR 97301

Eugene Public Library

Downtown Library 

100 W. 10th Avenue 

Eugene, OR 97401

Albany Public Library

2450 14th Avenue SE 

Albany, OR 97322

Albany City Hall

333 Broadalbin Street, SW 

Albany, OR 97321

Salem Public Library

585 Liberty Street SE 

Salem, OR 97301
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 - 9 

APRIL 2021

Oregon City Public Library

606 John Adams Street 

Oregon City, OR 97045

Multnomah County Central Library

801 SW 10th Avenue 

Portland, OR 97205

1.5.2 Public Meetings/Open Houses 

In-person open houses and public hearing events were held in five locations along the Project corridor in 

November and December 2018. The purpose of these events was to provide the public information 

presented in the Tier 1 DEIS in a drop-in style format involving display boards, a presentation by members 

of the Project team, and an opportunity for interested persons to give verbal or written testimony. 

Table 1-1 shows the locations, dates and number of attendees of the open houses.

Table 1-1: Public Hearing and Open House Events Held During DEIS Public Comment Period

Open House Date Location

Number of 

Attendees

Portland November 28, 2018 ODOT Region 1

123 Flanders St., Portland 30

Oregon City November 29, 2018 Pioneer Community Center

615 5th St., Oregon City 26

Albany December 4, 2018 Linn Benton Community College

6500 Pacific Blvd., Albany 31

Salem December 5, 2018 Pringle Hall

606 Church St. SE, Salem 16

Eugene December 6, 2018 Main Public Library

100 W 10th Ave., Eugene 73

Attendees received informational handouts about the Tier 1 DEIS findings as well as a public comment card. 

Participants were encouraged to review the information presented at the open house and discuss the 

findings with the several Project team members (i.e., ODOT and FRA staff and consultants) who attended 

the events. At each event, a presentation highlighted the results of the Tier 1 DEIS.

1.5.3 Additional Public Outreach Activities 

Additional public outreach activities included an online open house and informational tables set up at the 

Eugene Saturday Market, Salem Station 100 Year Anniversary event, and Union Station in Portland.

The online open house hosted on ODOT’s Project website was available from November 28 to 

December 18, 2018. The purpose of the online event was to:

• Present the Preferred Alternative for the Project; 

• Present the findings from the Tier 1 DEIS; and

• Provide the opportunity for public comment on the Tier 1 DEIS prior to the selection of the 

Preferred Alternative by FRA.

The same information and materials that were presented or displayed during the in-person open houses 

and public hearing events were available during the online open house. 

A total of 345 people visited the online open house.

In addition to the online open house, the Project team hosted informational tables at Union Station in 

Portland, at the Salem Station 100 Year Anniversary Event, and at the Saturday Market in Eugene in 

September and October 2018. The purpose of these events was to promote the public comment period, the 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 - 1 0

APRIL 2021

five open houses/public hearings and the online open house, and to outline the findings included in the 

Tier 1 DEIS. These three informational tables resulted in 77 people speaking with Project team members 

and 14 people leaving comments.

1.5.4 Comments and Responses on the Tier 1 DEIS

During the public comment period for the Tier 1 DEIS, ODOT and FRA received a total of 212 comments 

from members of the public and agency/organization representatives at five public events, through ODOT’s 

Project website, and by email and letter. Of the 212 comments, 60 were received via the website comment 

form, 59 through the online open house, 58 at the open house/public hearing events (51 via comment form 

and 9 via public testimony), 30 by email and 3 by mail. The comments are presented in their entirety in 

Appendix C. 

The key comment topics were:

• Support for Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative

• Frequency, schedule and reliability

• Technology, innovation, implementation and “phase-ability”

• Funding and cost

• Station locations and expanding service

• High speed and speed

• Ridership and capacity

• Support for Alternative 2

Several other themes emerged that received fewer comments than the key topics mentioned above (see 

Appendix B for more detail on comment topics and supporting themes). 

Agencies, organizations and local governments submitted a total of 14 comments. Of these submissions, 

11 provided feedback directly related to the alternatives presented in the Tier 1 DEIS. The commenters 

included the EPA, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Oregon Department of State Lands, Washington 

State Department of Transportation Rail Freight and Ports Division, the City of Eugene, the Tangent City 

Council, the University of Oregon Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates, Oregon Environmental 

Council and Travel Oregon. The Project team also received three submissions from the Central Lane 

Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Federal Transit Administration and TriMet that were 

process-related questions.

FRA and ODOT reviewed all of the public and agency comments and have taken the comments into 

consideration in the decision-making process for the Tier 1 FEIS/ROD. Comments and responses are 

included in Appendix C. 

1.6 Tier 1 DEIS Errata Table Table 1-2 documents changes that have been made to the Tier 1 DEIS based on comments received during 

the public comment period, and corrections or updates noted by FRA or ODOT after the publication of the 

DEIS. The table is organized into two sections based on the two types of errata: revised DEIS sections and 

minor text revisions. Appendix A contains the Tier 1 DEIS as published on October 19, 2018. Appendix D

contains the revised DEIS sections that are summarized in Table 1-2. The Tier 1 DEIS, combined with the 

Tier 1 DEIS Errata Table, is issued by FRA and ODOT as the Tier 1 FEIS for the Project under this Tier 1 

FEIS/ROD.
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 - 1 1

APRIL 2021

Table 1-2: Tier 1 DEIS Errata Table

Chapter/ 

Section Description of Action

Section/ 

Page(s) in

Tier 1 DEIS

Comment Number Addressed 

(see Appendix C)

Revised DEIS Sections (See Appendix D) 

Executive 

Summary, 

Section 1.1.1

Added “or connect to” to the statement about 

existing freight operations: 

“Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) owns the existing 

PNWRC railroad infrastructure in Oregon south 

of Portland’s Union Station. A mix of freight and 

passenger trains (operated by BNSF Railway, 

UPRR, Oregon Pacific, Portland Terminal 

Railroad, Willamette Valley Railway, Portland & 

Western Railroad, and Amtrak) currently utilize 

or connect to BNSF Railway and UPRR trackage 

that serves as the PNWRC.”

ES-1, 1-1 Not applicable (N/A): Errata identified by 

FRA 

Executive 

Summary, 

Section 1.1.1

Changed name of Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

(BNSF) Railway to BNSF Railway to reflect 

current naming convention. 

ES-1, 1-1 Comment I-75: Dan Hoffman 

Section 3.1.4, 

Ridership (No 

Action 

Alternative)

ODOT updated ridership forecasts using data on 

ridership trends since publication of the DEIS; 

Tier 1 DEIS passenger ridership and revenue 

forecasts for the future No Action Alternative 

have been updated and adjusted to account for 

the recent ridership trends in the PNWRC.

3-5 

N/A: Update to match the forecast 

developed for the Project’s Service 

Development Plan 

Section 3.2.4, 

Ridership (Build 

Alternatives)

ODOT updated ridership forecasts using data on 

ridership trends since publication of the DEIS; 

Tier 1 DEIS passenger ridership and revenue 

forecasts for the future Alternative 1 (Preferred 

Alternative) have been updated and adjusted to 

account for the recent ridership trends in the 

PNWRC.

3-24 

N/A: Update to match the forecast 

developed for the Project’s Service 

Development Plan 

Section 3.2.6.1

Adjustment in cost estimate for Alternative 1 

during development of Service Development 

Plan; cost estimates were refined to support the 

benefit-cost analysis in that plan. Costs for 

Alternative 1 increased by approximately 20%.

3-27 

N/A: Revision in cost estimate for 

Preferred Alternative developed during 

development of the Service Development 

Plan 

Section 3.2.6.2

Added statement that ODOT is considering need 

to build maintenance facility in Oregon for the 

Cascades service. 

3-28 Comment A-6: Washington State 

Department of Transportation

Section 3.2.6.2

Updated estimated Operations and Maintenance 

costs for consistency with the Service 

Development Plan. 

3-28 

N/A: Revision in cost estimate for 

Preferred Alternative developed during 

development of the Service Development 

Plan

Section 4.6

Updated narrative on Section 6(f) to reflect 

information that three additional parks are 

encumbered by the provisions of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund Act: Armitage County 

Park, Fish Eddy Landing and Eastmoreland Golf 

Course.

Table 4-6-1; 

Section 4.6 

Comment A-2: U.S. Department of the

Interior

Section 4.12.6

Added sentence within the wildlife corridor 

mitigation strategies to note that existing rail 

infrastructure could be retrofitted to provide 

hydrological and ecological connectivity.

4-125 Comment A-1: US EPA

Section 4.15.6

Added statement regarding Oregon’s new 

guidelines for establishing mitigation 

requirements, the Aquatic Resources Mitigation 

Framework. 

Page 4-144 Comment A-1: US EPA

Section 4.18.4 Updated narrative regarding railroad history in 

Oregon.

Pages 4-159, 

4-160

N/A: Refinement identified by Project 

team
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 - 1 2

APRIL 2021

Chapter/ 

Section Description of Action

Section/ 

Page(s) in

Tier 1 DEIS

Comment Number Addressed 

(see Appendix C)

Section 4.18.4

Added statement that the proposed Southwest 

Corridor transit project is in the fiscally

constrained regional plan. 

Page 4-162 Comment A-8: TriMet

Section 4.18.5

Added text from Section 4.17.6 regarding 

climate change to the statement about 

cumulative effects.

Page 4-168 Comment A-1: US EPA

Minor text revisions to DEIS–Revisions are noted in this table only, they are not included in Revised DEIS sections 

(Appendix D)

Executive 

Summary, Table 

ES-2 

Updated number of potentially affected 6(f) 

resources from 6 to 4 for Alternative 1, and 4 to 

6 for Alternative 2. (Updated narrative provided 

in Section 4.6, listed above.)

ES-16 Comment A-2: U.S. Department of the 

Interior 

Chapter 1, 

Section 4.2 

Transportation

Revised text on pages 1-12 and 4-12 referencing 

the planned addition of two round trips between 

Portland and Seattle and corresponding a 

schedule change on December 18, 2017. These 

additional trips and schedule change have been 

postponed due to the Amtrak derailment that 

occurred on that date. 

1-12, 4-12, 

4-15, 4-18 N/A: Errata identified by Project team

Section 3.1.3, 

Section 4.2.4.2, 

Section 4.18.4

ODOT has modified the Thruway bus service; the 

current service does not include the PortlandSalem bus and does not include a stop in Oregon 

City. Text adjusted to reflect. 

3-4, 4-5, 4-161 N/A: Change in existing conditions

identified by Project team

Section 3.2.1, 

Section 4.22

After publication of the DEIS, grant and matching 

UPRR funds were secured to pay for the 

Peninsula Junction project. Text was adjusted to 

reflect the funding. 

3-12, 3-14, 

3-27, 4-173 

N/A: Change in existing conditions, noted 

by Project team

Section 4.2.4.3

The at-grade crossing at Lawnfield Road has 

been closed; it was cited in the DEIS as causing 

delay under existing conditions. 

4-6 N/A: Change in existing conditions 

identified by Project team

Section 4.2.5 

Ridership numbers for the No Action Alternative 

and the Preferred Alternative have been refined 

to reflect updated modeling presented in 

Section 3.

4-10, 4-12, 

4-13, 4-14 

N/A: Update to match the forecast 

developed for the Project’s Service 

Development Plan

Section 4.10.4 

The Albany Depot has been listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places. The DEIS had 

noted that the depot was eligible for listing; the 

correction is that it has been listed. 

4-99 N/A: Change in existing conditions

identified by Project team

Section 4.8.4

Updated information on quiet zones in the 

existing conditions section. A quiet zone in 

Salem was extended and another was added in 

Portland. 

4-84 N/A: Change in existing conditions

identified by Project team

Section 4.14

Added accounting of all stream crossings, in 

addition to Section 303(d) listed crossings. 

Adjusted methods statement to reflect the 

change and added statement to mitigation 

section to reflect that anti-degradation 

provisions of the Clean Water Act apply to listed 

or non-listed waterbodies in the Project area. 

Section 

4.14.1, Table 

4-14-3, 

Section 4.14.6

Comment A-1: US EPA

Throughout 

document

Minor spelling or grammatical errors; updates to 

cross-referenced data for consistency 

throughout document.

- N/A: Editorial updates identified by 

Project team

 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 1 - 1 3

APRIL 2021

References 

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2011. Oregon Freight Plan. Adopted by the Oregon 

Transportation Commission on June 15, 2011.

Oregon DAS (Department of Administrative Services). 2015. Demographic forecast. 

https://www.oregon.gov/das/OEA/Pages/forecastdemographic.aspx
This page intentionally left blank.
Tier 1 Record of Decision 

Prepared by

April 2021
This page intentionally left blank.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Oregon Passenger Rail

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Prepared by

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

and

Oregon Department of Transportation

Pursuant to

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4332 et seq.), and implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 

1500-1508), 64 FR 28545, 49 U.S.C. §303 (Section 4(f), formerly Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 

Section 4(f)); National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. §300101 et seq.); Clean Air Act as amended 

(42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. and 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93); the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

§§1531-1544); and the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§1251-1387).

Date of Approval Paul Nissenbaum

Associate Administrator, Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Federal Railroad Administration

The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:

Lydia Kachadoorian

Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Phone: (781) 227-0778

April 14, 2021
ABSTRACT 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is issuing this Record of Decision (ROD) concurrently with the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) pursuant to Section 1311 of the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act (Pub. L. 114-94). Through this ROD, FRA selects Alternative 1, which would improve 

passenger rail service on the existing rail alignment between Eugene and Portland, Oregon. 

The ROD states FRA’s decision; identifies the alternatives considered in reaching the decision; summarizes 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies and future design practices appropriate for a Tier 1 FEIS; 

and states the next steps in the environmental review process that may occur with subsequent phases of 

the Project as it moves though further planning, design, and construction subject to available future 

funding. Members of the public; stakeholders; local governments; elected officials, non-governmental 

organizations; Native American Tribes; and Federal, State and local agencies have been and will continue to 

be involved in the Project throughout subsequent phases of the Project, as appropriate. 
Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2- i

APRIL 2021

Contents

Part 2: Tier 1 Record of Decision ................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Tier 1 EIS Process for the Project.................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Purpose and Need for the Project.................................................................................................. 2-2

2.4 Alternatives Considered in the Tier 1 DEIS..................................................................................... 2-3

2.5 Identification of the Selected Alternative ...................................................................................... 2-3

2.5.1 Selected Alternative Route and Rail Improvements .............................................................. 2-7

2.5.2 Selected Alternative Train Engine Technology ....................................................................... 2-8

2.5.3 Selected Alternative Station Locations................................................................................... 2-9

2.5.4 Selected Alternative Operational and Service Assumptions.................................................. 2-9

2.6 Preliminary Mitigation Assessment and Strategy .......................................................................... 2-9

2.7 Environmentally Preferable Alternative....................................................................................... 2-15

2.8 FRA Decision ................................................................................................................................. 2-15

Figures

Figure 2-1. Selected Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 2-8

Tables

Table 2-1. DEIS Alternatives Evaluation Findings........................................................................................... 2-4

Table 2-2. Summary of Potential Interagency Agreement Documents, Best Management Practices, 

Regulatory Coordination and Further Study Requirements ........................................................ 2-10
Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2-ii

APRIL 2021 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

APE Area of Potential Effect

BMPs best management practices

BNSF BNSF Railway

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIP Corridor Investment Plan

DMU diesel multiple unit

DSL Oregon Department of State Lands

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ Environmental Justice

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency

EPSC erosion prevention and sediment control

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

LEP limited English proficiency

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

mph miles per hour

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOI Notice of Intent

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation 

PNWRC Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor

ROD Record of Decision

ROW right-of-way

SDP Service Development Plan

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

U.S.C. United States Code
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 1

APRIL 2021

2Part 2: Tier 1 Record of Decision

2.1 Introduction 

In this Record of Decision (ROD), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) selects Alternative 1 (referred to 

in this ROD as the “Selected Alternative”), which was described and evaluated as the Preferred Alternative

in the Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), 

technical reports, and supporting documentation. 

The Oregon Passenger Rail Project (the Project) is a planning effort developed under a cooperative 

agreement between the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and FRA. The first phase of the 

process is the development of a Corridor Investment Plan (CIP). The process of completing a CIP consists of 

conducting an environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as 

documented in this Tier 1 EIS, and developing a Service Development Plan (SDP). The SDP is a detailed 

definition of the service improvements, transportation network, and the operational and financial aspects 

for the alternative for passenger rail service that is selected through the NEPA process. The intent of the CIP 

is to provide sufficient information to support future decision-making at the Federal, State and/or local 

levels regarding investments in the Oregon segment of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). 

ODOT and FRA used a tiered environmental process for the Project, which is a phased environmental 

review used in the development of complex projects (as provided in 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

1508.28). The tiered NEPA review and decision-making process allows for a broad-level programmatic 

decision with a first-tier EIS, followed by more specific analyses and decisions through one or more secondtier NEPA evaluations. 

The Project’s Tier 1 EIS and the SDP address corridor-level improvements to passenger rail service in the 

Project study area, including the following: 

• Rail corridor – Reasonable and feasible rail alignment improvement alternatives from EugeneSpringfield, OR, to Vancouver, WA

• Service characteristics – Passenger rail operational elements, train speeds, travel time, train

frequency and train technology

• Potential stations – The general location of potential passenger rail stations

If a Federal agency, including FRA, provides grant funding, a permit, or other approval to advance the 

Project, it may use this Tier 1 FEIS/ROD as the basis to undertake a Tier 2 NEPA environmental review 

process, or processes, and subsequently make and document future NEPA decisions. Tier 2 NEPA studies 

may, for example, further define improvements to intercity passenger rail service to meet future travel 

demand through construction of new or improvements to existing rail facilities and infrastructure, 

reduction in journey times, and improved connections with regional public transit services. During a Tier 2 

NEPA process, ODOT and FRA (or other lead Federal agency) will conduct more detailed environmental 

analyses, refine components of the Project within the Selected Alternative, identify all applicable permits, 

and define location-specific avoidance and mitigation measures.

FRA is issuing this Tier 1 ROD based on the analysis in the DEIS and FEIS, all technical reports and supporting 

documentation, and after consideration of public comments. 

2.2 Tier 1 EIS Process for the Project 

FRA is the lead Federal agency responsible for conducting the Tier 1 NEPA environmental review process for 

the Project and issuing this Tier 1 FEIS/ROD. FRA, in cooperation with ODOT, prepared a Tier 1 EIS to 

evaluate a broad-level programmatic decision regarding the rail corridor, service characteristics and 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 2 

APRIL 2021

potential station locations. For FRA, this tiered NEPA approach allows for incremental decision-making for 

large corridor projects that are unsuited for analysis in a traditional project-level EIS. 

ODOT received a grant under FRA’s Fiscal Year 2010 High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program, with the 

funding to be used for the development of planning and environmental analysis for the improvement of 

passenger rail service on the PNWRC between Eugene and Portland, OR. The Tier 1 NEPA process began 

with FRA’s publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Tier 1 EIS in the Federal Register on 

August 17, 2012. Following publication of the NOI, FRA and ODOT initiated a scoping process to inform the 

public and interest groups, and actively solicit feedback from agencies about the proposed Project, corridor 

alternatives, and issues for public and agency review and input. Comments and recommendations received 

during the scoping process from the public, stakeholders and agencies were used by FRA and ODOT to 

refine the Project’s Purpose and Need Statement, corridor alternatives, and the scope of the environmental 

analysis to be included in the Tier 1 EIS process. ODOT and FRA released the Tier 1 DEIS for the Project in 

October 2018 for public review and comment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a 

Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on October 19, 2018 (83 FR 53053). The public was invited to 

provide comments on the Tier 1 DEIS through various opportunities and communication methods from 

October 18 through December 19, 2018, including five public hearing meetings held along the project 

corridor. FRA and ODOT reviewed the public and agency comments and have taken the comments into 

consideration in the decision-making process for the Tier 1 FEIS. Comments and responses are included in 

Appendix C of the FEIS. 

2.3 Purpose and Need for the Project 

FRA and ODOT developed the following Purpose and Need for the Project. The Purpose and Need 

Statement was informed by public input, was used to identify the reasonable range of alternatives, and was 

included in the Tier 1 DEIS. The Purpose and Need Statement remained consistent between the Tier 1 DEIS 

and the Tier 1 FEIS, and it is presented in Section 1.2 of the Tier 1 DEIS and below.

The purpose of the Project is to improve the frequency, convenience, speed and reliability of passenger rail 

service along the Oregon segment of the Federally designated PNWRC in a manner that will: 

• Provide riders with an efficient, safe, equitable and affordable alternative to highway, bus and air 

travel;

• Be a cost-effective investment;

• Protect freight-rail carrying capability;

• Support the ongoing implementation of regional high-speed intercity passenger rail in the PNWRC 

between the Eugene-Springfield, OR metropolitan area and Vancouver, BC; 

• Be compatible with the Washington state portion of the PNWRC;

• Promote economic development;

• Avoid or minimize community and environmental impacts; and

• Integrate with existing and planned multimodal transportation networks.

The need for the Project arises from multiple transportation, land use, socio-economic and environmental 

considerations, including the following:

• Increasing intercity and regional travel demands;

• Existing limited rail-system capacity and competing service needs;

• Constrained state and local roadway funding;

• Increasing economic vitality of the corridor;

• Declining transportation system safety and security; and

• Changing transportation demand resulting from demographic changes.
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 3 

APRIL 2021

2.4 Alternatives Considered in the Tier 1 DEIS 

The alternatives considered in the Tier 1 DEIS did not change in the Tier 1 FEIS. Chapter 3 of the DEIS 

describes the Project alternatives advanced for further study, which include a No Action Alternative and 

two Build Alternatives (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2). 

The No Action Alternative consists of the continuation of the existing Amtrak Cascades passenger train 

route and service, including existing stations between Eugene, OR, and Vancouver, WA. It includes all 

committed improvements to the existing intercity passenger rail system, the intercity highway system and 

other modes of transportation available to the public in the Project study area. 

The two Build Alternatives are: 

• Alternative 1 – This Build Alternative would be constructed within or immediately adjacent to the 

existing Amtrak Cascades passenger rail route (i.e., the Union Pacific Railroad [UPRR] line) between 

Eugene and Portland. Alternative 1 would rely on existing railroad right-of-way for much of the route.

Sections of mainline track and sidings would be added where needed to accommodate additional 

passenger rail service while maintaining the current level of freight rail operations. The route would 

serve seven passenger rail round trips per day—six on the Amtrak Cascades and one on the Coast 

Starlight (a “6+1” schedule). Alternative 1 would serve existing stations (Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon 

City and Portland). 

• Alternative 2 – This Build Alternative would involve construction of new mainline track and sidings 

throughout the majority of the route, where it would be adjacent to the existing I-5 and I-205 highway 

alignments. New mainline track would also be added adjacent to the existing Portland & Western 

Railroad line between Keizer and Wilsonville and to the existing UPRR line north of Oregon City to 

Portland’s Union Station. The route would serve seven round trips per day—six on the Amtrak Cascades 

and one on the Coast Starlight (a “6+1” schedule). Alternative 2 would serve the existing Portland 

station, and would have new stations in Springfield, Albany, and in Salem or Keizer. A station to serve 

the southern portion of the Portland metropolitan area could be located in Wilsonville or Tualatin. 

Alternative 2 has one option:

The Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option – This option would be the same as Alternative 2 

except in the vicinity of Albany, where the route would diverge from the I-5 area to serve the 

existing Albany station.

2.5 Identification of the SelectedAlternative 

ODOT conducted an open, interactive scoping process (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS) to develop the Project 

Purpose and Need as well as high-level Goals and Objectives (see Chapter 2 of the DEIS). ODOT and FRA

used the Project’s Goals and Objectives to develop an evaluation framework, which served as the basis for 

the analysis and screening of corridor concepts and preliminary alternatives. In association with the 

technical analyses conducted for the Tier 1 DEIS, ODOT and FRA used the evaluation criteria previously 

developed and based on the Goals and Objectives to compare the two Build Alternatives and subsequently 

identified Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative in the DEIS.

Table 2-1 below shows the Goals and summarizes the objectives-based performance attributes that 

differentiate one or more of the DEIS alternatives. Based on the analysis conducted for the DEIS and the 

subsequent public and agency engagement and comment, ODOT and FRA identified Alternative 1 as the 

Preferred Alternative. A high-level summary of impacts of the alternatives considered in the DEIS can be 

found in the DEIS in Table ES-2. More information on the Preferred Alternative can be found in Chapter 4 of 

the DEIS, Section 4.22.
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 4 

APRIL 2021

Table 2-1. DEIS Alternatives Evaluation Findings

Performance Attribute No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Goal 1: Improve passenger rail mobility and accessibility to communities in the Willamette Valley

Passenger rail trip time: 

Eugene to/from Portland

2:35 2:20 2:02 

Ability to accommodate 

higher speeds in the future

Maintains current 

maximum speed (79 miles 

per hour [mph]) 

Maintains current 

maximum speed (79 mph)

Maximum speeds of 120 mph 

on portions of new alignment

Goal 2: Protect freight-rail capacity and investments in the corridor, and maintain safety

Future freight-rail capacity No improvement Build alternatives designed to protect capacity 

At-grade (street level) 

crossings

Two passive crossings 

closed; no additional safety 

modifications to existing 

at-grade crossings

Widening of 64 existing 

crossings to accommodate 

additional track; safety 

improvements as needed

Widening of 52 existing 

crossings; safety improvements 

as needed, 1 new crossing 

(widening of 65 existing 

crossings for Central Albany 

Option)

Goal 3: Plan, design, implement, maintain and operate a cost-effective project

Ability to phase 

improvements over time

Not applicable Could be constructed 

incrementally in smaller 

phased projects

Would require building in large 

sections; if phased, could 

require improvements to 

existing alignment

Capital costs through 2035 

(2015 dollars)

Not applicable $870 million–$1,025 million $3.62 billion–$4.44 billion

Ridership (2035) 390,000 739,000 723,000 

Goal 4: Provide an affordable and equitable travel alternative

Cost and access No change Improved train service for both Build Alternatives

Goal 5: Be compatible with passenger rail investments planned in Washington State

Compatibility No change Build alternatives were designed to meet this goal

Goal 6: Promote community health and quality of life for communities along the corridor

Produces benefits and 

minimizes negative impacts

No change Higher frequency and 

ridership, improves service 

to central cities

Higher frequency and ridership, 

but service focused outside 

central cities

Goal 7: Protect and preserve the natural and built environment

Support preservation of land, 

avoid and minimize negative 

impacts

No change Lower footprint and 

construction impacts than 

Alternative 2

New alignment, thus higher 

right-of-way and environmental 

impacts than Alternative 1

Based on analysis of the performance of the Build Alternatives and the No Action Alternative for each of the 

Goals and Objectives established for the Project and the potential environmental consequences, described 

in Chapter 4 of the DEIS, Sections 4.1 through 4.22, and consideration of public comments on the DEIS, FRA 

selects Alternative 1 in this ROD. This selection is made with the consideration of economic and technical 

factors, consistent with NEPA’s implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality. 

The key differentiating factors between the alternatives are summarized below, with a focus on the 

comparison between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Generally, the impacts for Alternative 2 with the 

Albany Option would be similar to Alternative 2.
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 5 

APRIL 2021

• Provide a viable alternative to auto, air and bus travel between Eugene, OR, and Vancouver, WA:

Alternative 2 would provide an 18-minute travel time savings compared to Alternative 1 and a 

33-minute travel time savings compared to the No Action Alternative. However, as noted below, this 

travel time savings does not result in higher ridership for Alternative 2. Reliability would substantially 

increase from current conditions under both Build Alternatives. Both Build Alternatives would align 

schedules with the state of Washington passenger rail service. 

• Provide reliable and frequent passenger rail service: The Build Alternatives would greatly outperform 

the No Action Alternative in terms of ridership, and Alternative 1 shows slightly higher projected 

ridership than Alternative 2 (approximately 6.25 percent), despite slower anticipated travel times. Both 

Build Alternatives would provide the capacity to serve six round trip trains per day between Eugene and 

Portland, plus the existing Amtrak long-distance service. The No Action Alternative would serve two 

round trips per day, plus the existing Amtrak long-distance service. 

• Support multimodal integration at each potential passenger rail station: More people and jobs are 

potentially served with Alternative 1, because the existing stations are located in existing urban and 

employment centers. These station locations are currently connected to the community via pedestrian 

and bike facilities, and existing transit services. Alternative 2 stations near I-5 would exhibit lower 

ridership due to lack of development at the station areas and a reliance on park-and-ride trips. In 

addition, new pedestrian and bike facilities, and new transit services would presumably need to be 

extended to these new stations to increase multimodal integration. The Central Albany Option would 

increase the potential of Alternative 2 to support multimodal integration, because the station would be 

located in downtown Albany near existing transit services and a bicycle and pedestrian network. 

• Allow for future passenger rail improvements, including higher speeds: Alternative 2 (120 miles per 

hour [mph] maximum) could support higher maximum speeds than Alternative 1 or the No Action 

Alternative (79 mph maximum) on portions of the new alignment. Both Build Alternatives would allow 

for future passenger rail improvements.

• Do not increase conflicts between passenger rail and/or freight rail and vehicles: Neither Build 

Alternative would increase conflicts between passenger/freight rail and vehicles. However, Alternative 

2 would have far fewer existing at-grade crossings (up to 100 fewer crossings) than Alternative 1. ODOT 

and UPRR would close two of the 147 existing at-grade crossings for Alternative 1.

• Phasing of improvements: Alternative 1 could be built in phases, with the potential to be developed in 

smaller, reasonably fundable segments. Alternative 2 would have to be built in large sections. In 

addition, improvements for Alternative 2 would have to be made on the No Action

Alternative/Alternative 1 alignment to allow additional round trips if the full Alternative 2 alignment 

was not ready for operation. Those improvements on the Alternative 1 alignment would benefit freight 

rail but would not benefit passenger service after Alternative 2 is completed.

• Construction costs: The cost of Alternative 2 is estimated to be more than four times higher than 

Alternative 1. Capital costs for Alternative 1 would be approximately $1.3 billion, and capital costs for 

Alternative 2 would be approximately $4.5 billion (2015 dollars). 

• Serve the maximum number of people with every dollar invested: The capital cost per new rider is 

estimated to be five times higher for Alternative 2 than for Alternative 1. The annual operations and 

maintenance costs are estimated to be $38 million for Alternative 1 and $44 million for Alternative 2.

• Environmental Justice (EJ) impacts: Alternative 2 could have greater impacts to EJ populations than 

Alternative 1. With Alternative 2, much of the new railroad alignment would be constructed through 

rural agricultural areas that have lower overall populations, but which contain EJ populations, and in a 

few urban areas along I‐5. Alternative 2 would include the addition of new track throughout the full

alignment and the potential for up to four new stations. Therefore, it is anticipated that Alternative 2 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 6 

APRIL 2021

would result in a greater degree of displacements and impacts to EJ or limited English proficiency (LEP) 

populations. Because the double‐track portions of Alternative 1 would be constructed adjacent to an

existing railroad alignment, social cohesion issues related to community resources used by EJ LEP 

populations are not anticipated, because the communities have historically adapted and built around 

the existing UPRR and BNSF Railway (BNSF) rail lines. Fewer displacements would be likely for 

Alternative 1 compared to Alternative 2. However, these rail lines would continue to be a barrier in 

communities along the alignment and would periodically have wider at-grade crossings than in existing 

conditions and marginally more potential for delays. 

• Benefit communities within the corridor: Alternative 1 would have more employment density and 

development near the station locations. Alternative 1 would use existing Amtrak stations, which 

generally are located in or near downtown areas. With the exception of Portland and Albany in the 

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option, Alternative 2 would include new stations that are located 

outside of downtown areas. 

• Impacts to sensitive noise receptors along the corridor: Overall, more potentially noise-sensitive and 

vibration-sensitive land uses are located within incorporated areas than within unincorporated areas. 

Because the Alternative 1 noise study area contains more incorporated areas than that of Alternative 2, 

Alternative 1 would have a higher relative potential to impact noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses. 

A slightly higher proportion of lands in the Alternative 1 noise study area are designated for residential 

uses than in the Alternative 2 noise study area. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have a higher potential 

for residential noise impacts. Finally, substantially more institutional land uses (e.g., parks/open spaces, 

schools, libraries, places of worship, cemeteries, museums, hospitals and community centers) were 

identified within the Alternative 1 noise study area than within the Alternative 2 noise study area.

• Farmland impacts: Alternative 1 would have less potential overall impact on farmland because of its 

reliance on existing right-of-way (ROW). Alternative 2 would have greater potential impact on

farmland, because it would convert land that is currently available for farmland to non-agricultural use 

(i.e., new rail ROW) in several of its segments. 

• Impacts to the Willamette River Greenway: Alternative 1 would not require new Willamette River 

crossings, while Alternative 2 would require three new crossings of the Willamette River. Goal 15 of the 

Oregon Statewide Planning Goals aims to protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the quality of land 

along the Willamette River. The Alternative 2 crossings would likely require an exception through a 

local plan amendment process.

• Threatened and endangered species impacts: Overall, Alternative 1 would be expected to have less of 

an impact on threatened and endangered species than Alternative 2. Alternative 1 would have a 

smaller construction footprint and shorter construction duration than Alternative 2. The Alternative 1 

study area has the highest number of known locations of special status species. There is, however, only 

one known location of a Federally listed species, Nelson’s sidalcea (Sidalcea nelsoniana), within the 

direct impact study area. Alternative 1 has less potential than Alternative 2 to directly impact natural 

wildlife habitats generally and Oregon Conservation Strategy habitats specifically. Alternative 1 has less 

potential to directly impact wildlife linkages than Alternative 2. Alternative 1 has approximately 

1.8 acres of conservation easements, while Alternative 2 has approximately 2.8 acres, and Alternative 2 

with Central Albany Option has no conservation easements. Using new stream crossings as an indicator

for potential impacts to aquatic resources, Alternative 1 has less potential than Alternative 2 to directly 

impact streams, because Alternative 1 could impact 10 streams with protected fish and Alternative 2 

could impact 22 streams.

• Wetland and waterway impacts: Alternative 1 would likely have considerably fewer impacts on 

wetlands and waterways than Alternative 2. Alternative 1 would have the lowest potential direct 

impacts, both in terms of overall wetland acreage and acres of high-value wetlands (32 acres and 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 7 

APRIL 2021

7 acres, respectively, for Alternative 1, compared with 144 acres and 49 acres, respectively, for 

Alternative 2). The amount of hydric soils (excluding areas mapped as wetland) within the Alternative 1 

direct impact study area is less than half of Alternative 2 (378 and 818 acres, respectively). Therefore, 

Alternative 2 would have a notably larger potential direct impact on wetland and waterway resources.

• Geology impacts: Alternative 1 would have fewer geology-related impacts than Alternative 2.

Alternative 1 would be constructed within and parallel to an existing rail alignment; therefore, limited 

earthwork is anticipated. No large fills would be required, so settlement because of compressible soil is 

expected to be minimal. Alternative 2 would require considerably more earthwork than Alternative 1. 

Fills placed in areas with compressible soil, historic landfills, or unconsolidated debris flow fans would 

need to be evaluated for settlement; mitigation could be required if the anticipated settlement could 

not be accommodated. Several rock cuts would be required along the Alternative 2 alignment, and 

multiple cuts alternating with viaduct structures would be required between Turner and Salem.

• Cultural resource impacts: There are 48 known historic properties in the study area for Alternative 1, 

including the five existing rail stations. The study area for Alternative 2 includes 33 known historic 

properties. Impacts associated with these properties would depend on the need for acquisitions and 

future design. In general, historic properties adjacent to the existing, active UPRR alignment are not 

expected to be adversely affected, because the impacts to these historic properties, which are already 

adjacent to an active rail line, would likely be negligible.

• Section 4(f) impacts: The Tier 1 DEIS identified properties potentially protected by Section 4(f) of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 United States Code [U.S.C.] 303). Alternative 1 

would likely have fewer impacts to Section 4(f) resources than Alternative 2. Alternative 1 would result 

in potential direct impacts to 10 Section 4(f) parks/recreation resources, whereas Alternative 2 would 

result in potential direct impacts to 18 (19 for Central Albany Option) Section 4(f) parks/recreation 

resources. Based on this high-level assessment, neither Build Alternative would result in an impact on a 

Section 4(f) park/recreation resource that would be greater than de minimis in nature. 

Built Property Impacts: Alternative 1 has more historic properties (48 National Register of 

Historic Places [NRHP]‐listed or NRHP-eligible historic [built] properties adjacent to proposed

new track compared to Alternative 2, which has 33 [37 for Alternative 2 with Central Albany 

Option] historic properties). However, with Alternative 1, most acquisition of historic properties 

for new ROW would consist of linear strips of unimproved property, although removal of 

historic properties is possible. Alternative 2 has a greater potential for demolition of historic 

(built) properties, particularly near proposed new stations and the cut-and-cover tunnel.

Alternative 2 would also result in existing historic passenger rail stations (in Eugene, Albany 

[except the Central Albany Option], Salem and Oregon City) being taken out of their historic 

and current use, and replaced with new stations in other locations.

Archaeological Site Impacts: Alternative 1 would likely have a slightly lesser impact related to 

archaeological resources. Eight (8) known archaeological sites are within the No Action 

Alternative/Alternative 1 Area of Potential Effect (APE), and 10 known sites are within the 

Alternative 2 APE. 

2.5.1 Selected Alternative Route and Rail Improvements 

The Selected Alternative would improve the existing passenger rail route between Eugene and Portland, 

OR, with the addition of parallel track in multiple sections within or immediately adjacent to the existing 

alignment. The current Amtrak Cascades passenger rail service operates on existing UPRR track between 

Eugene and Portland’s Union Station. North of Union Station, the Amtrak Cascades service operates on 

existing BNSF track. The proposed track improvements would be built adjacent to the existing host railroad 

mainlines, as shown schematically in Figure 2-1. 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 8 

APRIL 2021

Figure 2-1. Selected Alternative

2.5.2 SelectedAlternative Train Engine Technology 

Train engine technologies considered for the Project’s Build Alternatives include the existing technology 

(diesel locomotive-hauled) as well as the diesel multiple unit (DMU) technology. These technologies, as well 

as those screened out from further analysis, are introduced in Chapter 2 of the DEIS, Section 2.2.3.

Locomotive-hauled trains are diesel-powered and are paired with passenger coaches that are capable of 

operating at speeds up to 125 mph. The existing Amtrak Cascades fleet uses locomotive-hauled trains, and 

their continued use would not introduce new maintenance or operational training requirements. 

Additionally, in 2017, Washington State purchased eight next generation diesel-electric locomotives to 

include in the fleet for Amtrak Cascades service throughout the PNWRC, including the Oregon segment. 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 9 

APRIL 2021

DMUs are multiple-unit trains powered by on-board diesel engines that are also capable of operating at

speeds up to 125 mph. A DMU requires no separate locomotive, because the engines are incorporated into 

one or more of the carriages. DMUs would introduce a new technology to the existing fleet, but would use 

the same type of fuel (diesel) and track infrastructure as diesel locomotive-hauled trains. Although it would 

be possible to integrate DMUs into the Amtrak Cascades service, DMUs would introduce new maintenance 

and operational requirements. 

This Tier 1 FEIS/ROD assumes that either train engine technology would be suitable for the PNWRC. A 

preferred technology was not selected as part of the Tier 1 FEIS/ROD, but one may be selected in a Tier 2 

NEPA analysis. 

2.5.3 SelectedAlternative Station Locations 

The Selected Alternative uses the existing stations along the current Amtrak Cascades route, but 

improvements at the existing stations were not considered in the Tier 1 FEIS/ROD. Potential improvements 

to existing stations (e.g., parking facilities, multi-modal connections, gate or station improvements) may be 

evaluated in a Tier 2 analysis. Potential improvements to the stations at Eugene and Portland are or have 

been the subject of separate NEPA analyses conducted by FRA for other grants. 

2.5.4 Selected AlternativeOperational and Service Assumptions

Both of the Build Alternatives would include six Amtrak Cascades train round trips and one Amtrak Coast 

Starlight train round trip per day, as well as supplemental Thruway bus service between Portland and 

Eugene. Some of the current Thruway bus service is scheduled so that it connects in Portland with Amtrak 

Cascades trains that travel between Portland and Seattle. ODOT would incrementally replace Thruway bus 

service with passenger rail trips as the Selected Alternative is implemented. The new round trips between 

Springfield/Eugene and Portland would be scheduled to match with trains that currently start or end at 

Portland’s Union Station.

2.6 Preliminary Mitigation Assessment and Strategy 

In a Tier 1 EIS, potential impacts are identified using high-level data and analysis. For the Project, ODOT and 

FRA used existing information on known resources and estimated impacts with a lesser level of engineering 

than is used for a project-level analysis. As a result, the available information is not detailed enough to 

formulate specific mitigation measures. Therefore, each resource evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS includes a list 

of mitigation strategies that would be considered and further developed in the future as part of the Tier 2 

environmental analysis (see Chapter 4 of the DEIS). Project-specific mitigation strategies for project-related

impacts would be considered and implemented as necessary during subsequent Tier 2 environmental 

studies. If FRA funding or approval is associated with construction of the Project, FRA would require 

compliance with the commitments and measures described below and any additional measures as 

appropriate which may be developed during a Tier 2 environmental review. 

Representative mitigation strategies listed in Chapter 4 of the DEIS include conceptual avoidance and 

minimization measures for the next phase of design, suggestions for interagency agreement documents, 

best management practices (BMPs), regulatory agency and tribal coordination, and further technical study 

requirements. These strategies are summarized in Table 2-2. 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 1 0

APRIL 2021

Table 2-2. Summary of Potential Interagency Agreement Documents, Best Management 

Practices, Regulatory Coordination and Further Study Requirements

Resource Potential Mitigation and Best Management Practicesa

Transportation Future project-level mitigation measures could include, but would not be limited to, the following:

• Additional signal upgrades and infrastructure improvements to decrease passenger and freight 

conflicts on shared track beyond the improvements incorporated into the Selected Alternative;

• Additional crossing upgrades or closures to improve safety beyond those incorporated into the 

Selected Alternative; and/or

• Implementation of a traffic management plan during construction activities to route roadway 

traffic away from construction zones, minimize traffic pattern disruptions, and reduce 

construction-related delays.

Land Use/Agricultural 

Lands

Future project-level mitigation measures could include, but would not be limited to, the following:

• Ensuring that needed modifications that could extend beyond the existing ROW (such as new 

sidings) are not proposed to be located in areas where buildings are located very close to the 

existing roadway or railroad line; 

• Designing and siting modifications to avoid structures where possible and using the less 

constrained side of the ROW;

• Complying with the Uniform Act requirements; and

• Creating new crossings and alternative routes for farm uses.

Environmental Justice and 

Title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act

BMPs would be used to minimize construction effects as practicable. If effects cannot be avoided 

or minimized, mitigation strategies would be implemented.

Specific mitigation measures are not identified as part of this Tier 1 analysis but would be 

identified during the project-level analysis when details on the proposed facilities and impacts are 

determined. These project‐level analyses would pursue further outreach to and engagement with

potentially affected EJ and LEP communities in order to communicate project information and 

potential impacts, and to discuss potential mitigation strategies, as appropriate.

Tier 2 project-specific evaluations of disproportionately high and adverse impacts on EJ 

populations would include consultation with local governments and planning agencies and would 

consider minimizing barrier effects to maintain neighborhood integrity, including protected rail 

crossings, and improved visual quality of project facilities. In coordination with local jurisdictions, 

ODOT would develop and implement a traffic control plan to minimize traffic delays and periodic 

lane and/or access revisions during and after construction.

Social Resources Mitigation strategies identified for the other resources (e.g., Noise and Vibration and Air Quality) 

would contribute to minimization and avoidance of impacts on social resources. 

During construction, temporary traffic control plans (including plans for transit stops, cyclists, and 

pedestrians) would be required to maintain needed access to destinations and provide necessary 

circulation within and between communities. 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 1 1

APRIL 2021

Resource Potential Mitigation and Best Management Practicesa

Economics No mitigation is expected to be required for potential economic effects. Tier 2 environmental 

studies would consider and implement project-specific mitigation strategies for economic 

resources if impacts are identified that require mitigation.

Section 4(f) and Section 

6(f) Resources

None of the alternatives considered at this Tier 1 level of NEPA analysis, including the preliminary 

alternatives that were considered and dismissed, would avoid all Section 4(f) resources in the 

Project study area. However, ODOT and FRA anticipate that: (1) the Preferred Alternative studied 

in the EIS could avoid most of the identified potential Section 4(f) impacts, and (2) those Section 

4(f) resources that cannot be completely avoided would likely meet the criteria for a Section 4(f) 

de minimis impact finding.

Subsequent project-level design efforts and Tier 2 environmental studies would more specifically 

identify Project impacts to Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources, and could result in modifications 

to Tier 1 conceptual infrastructure design in order to avoid and/or minimize impacts to these

resources. Any mitigation provided to compensate for Section 4(f) de minimis impacts would be 

determined in association with Tier 2 environmental studies. If a specific Tier 2 passenger rail 

project could not avoid Land and Water Conservation Fund lands, replacement property of at least 

equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent location and usefulness could be required as 

mitigation.

Visual and Aesthetic 

Quality

Future project-level mitigation measures could include, but would not be limited to, the following:

• Design the most visually prominent elements (such as station buildings or elevated structures) 

to improve the aesthetic environment;

• Employ context-sensitive design, taking into consideration regional, local and site-specific cues 

(such as color, texture, form and scale) in the designed appearance of bridge abutments, 

retaining walls, bridges, viaducts and other structures; and

• Provide appropriate vegetated buffers, where space allows, to screen the tracks and trains from 

view by adjacent developments.

Noise and Vibration Future project-level mitigation measures could include, but would not be limited to, the following:

• Selection and use of equipment and construction techniques that produce the least noise 

and/or vibration;

• Evaluation of the continued use of operational controls, such as the reduction of train horn 

noise, in compliance with the Quiet Zone requirements under FRA’s whistle ban regulation in 

the Train Horn Rule (49 CFR 222); 

• Installation of noise barriers, building insulation, insulated windows and other noise buffering 

methods; and

• Installation of ballast mats and other methods to reduce ground-borne noise and vibration. 

Hazardous Materials Avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures could include, but would not be limited to, the 

following:

• Use of avoidance methods and procedures, including during design of engineering features, to 

limit and/or address conflicts with known and suspected contamination; and

• Use of construction safety methods and procedures that protect human health and 

prevent/minimize hazardous materials releases during construction, including personal 

protection, workplace monitoring, and site-specific health and safety plans.
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 1 2

APRIL 2021

Resource Potential Mitigation and Best Management Practicesa

Cultural and Historic 

Resources

Forty-Eight (48) NRHP listed or eligible built/above-ground historic properties and eight (8) 

previously recorded NRHP eligible archaeological/below-ground historic properties are present in 

the Project study area. 

Cultural and historic resources would be further evaluated in Tier 2 project-specific analysis and 

consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), affected Native American 

Tribes, consulting parties, and other interested parties would occur as necessary regarding

appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures. 

If a finding of adverse effect is made as part of any subsequent Tier 2 analysis, the product of 

Section 106 consultation would be a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), as stipulated in 36 CFR 

800.6(c). The MOA would include stipulations that specify measures to be implemented by ODOT, 

or other responsible party identified in the MOA, that would avoid, minimize or mitigate the 

adverse effects to historic properties.

Avoidance measures for below-ground historic properties could include work stoppage if grounddisturbing activities encounter human remains or archaeological materials during construction. If 

this occurs, the affected area would be secured and ODOT would contact FRA, Oregon SHPO and 

the applicable county coroner.

Mitigation measures for adverse effects could include redesigning aspects of individual Tier 2 

projects, development and implementation of construction protection plans, relocation of historic 

buildings, recordation of buildings and structures, data recovery of archaeological sites, and/or 

alternative mitigation strategies.

Geology and Soils Mitigation measures during construction would likely be required for the project design criteria to 

be met where unstable slopes, liquefiable soils, and/or compressible soils are present within the 

construction area. Mitigation measures could include retaining walls, slope re-grading, deep 

foundations, foundations designed to resist landslide-induced lateral loads, surcharge fills, ground 

improvement, rock bolts and other measures. Rock tunneling could be an approach to avoid 

unstable slopes and rockfall from the cliffs on both sides of the Willamette River through West 

Linn and Oregon City.

Biological Resources Mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources would follow a hierarchy of avoidance, 

minimization and compensation for impacts. Future project-level mitigation measures could 

include, but would not be limited to, the following actions:

• Impacts to biological resources could be avoided or minimized during design by:

o Locating new tracks, sidings and other facilities away from known occurrences of listed 

species and critical habitats, and wetlands;

o Minimizing rail alignment impact areas with retaining walls instead of fill placement (these 

walls would need to be designed to minimize barrier effects); and

o Minimizing construction staging areas by utilizing the rail bed itself for staging.

• The Project could maintain the preconstruction hydrologic regime of the area, creating 

replacement wildlife habitat and rehabilitating existing nearby habitat, and improving water 

quality.

• The Project could mitigate for construction activities by revegetating disturbed areas.

• For wildlife crossings within wildlife linkage areas, careful design and placement of culverts and 

bridges could be incorporated to include wildlife passage features. Furthermore, rail bed 

embankments alongside other ROWs are potential ecological corridors that could be used for 

providing connectivity between habitats. Existing rail corridor infrastructure that could be 

retrofitted to provide hydrological and ecological connectivity (i.e., using oversized bottomless 

culverts, underpasses, overpasses or specific smaller structures allowing for connectivity and 

species passage) may be used. 

• Potential direct impacts on streams and aquatic habitat would be associated with work in the 

water for stream crossings; this includes pile driving, culvert installation and placement of 

bridge-abutment footings. One potential strategy to avoid direct impacts to biological resources 

from this type of work would be to build crossings as full-span bridges; the engineering 

feasibility of this approach could be assessed in subsequent design efforts and Tier 2 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 1 3

APRIL 2021

Resource Potential Mitigation and Best Management Practicesa

environmental studies. Mitigation strategies for unavoidable in-water construction activities 

would include BMPs for erosion and sediment control, spill prevention and pollution control 

measures, and seasonal work restrictions.

• BMPs for the protection of migratory birds are to avoid disturbance between February 1 and 

July 31, when birds are nesting and rearing their young. If disturbance is anticipated during 

those months, conduct activities to prevent nesting prior to February 1.

Floodplain Future project-level mitigation measures could include, but would not be limited to, the following 

actions:

• Potential long-term and construction-period floodplain impacts could be avoided or minimized 

by use of appropriate BMPs during any future design and construction phases. Examples of 

potential BMPs that may be explored include: locating the station facility outside of a flood 

zone, elevating structures and utilities, and providing flood openings in new construction. 

Where no reasonable alternative location outside of a flood zone is available for a new station, 

designing the facilities to be flood-resistant may be an option.

• Prior to construction, as specific unavoidable impacts are recognized, preferential mitigation 

measures and potential Federal Emergency Management Agency map revisions could be 

identified as project commitments.

Other potential construction BMPs applicable to water quality/surface water/stormwater, and 

wetlands and waterways (and including such resources within floodplains) are listed in 

Section 4.14.6 of the Tier 1 EIS. 

Water Quality/Surface 

Water/Stormwater

Future project-level mitigation measures could include, but would not be limited to, the following 

actions:

• Mitigation would be required for treatment of stormwater from all new and redeveloped 

impervious surfaces within the specific project. Stormwater runoff from new impervious areas 

would require permits from local jurisdictions in addition to Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality. Stormwater management would be required to meet all Federal and 

State requirements at the time of construction, including conditions from the Biological 

Opinion.

• Erosion prevention and sediment control (EPSC) would be implemented prior to construction. 

The Project would need to have approved erosion and sediment control plans before the start 

of any construction. EPSC measures could include sediment fences and wattles for disturbed 

areas, inlet protection for storm systems, prevention of construction equipment leakage, gravel 

construction entrances, wheel washes and vegetative cover of disturbed areas. An in-water 

work plan would be required, where appropriate. The contractor would also be required to 

maintain a spill control kit to be used in case of a material spill.

• Although construction impacts to water quality could occur as a result of soil erosion, 

sedimentation and potential construction pollutant loading of stormwater runoff, they would 

be temporary. Such impacts would cease after construction was completed. However, the 

prevention or minimization of construction and long-term pollution would be accomplished by 

use of appropriate stormwater BMPs, in accordance with State and Federal water quality runoff 

treatment and flow control requirements.

Potential BMPs could include the following:

• Prepare and follow a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to minimize potential 

erosion, surface water runoff and dust generation.

• Prepare and implement an approved Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan 

during construction that would address construction activities related to equipment fueling and 

maintenance, including types of hydraulic fluids used, emergency spill containment procedures 

and spill containment materials.

• Prepare and implement a construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to minimize 

sediment, spills and dust from escaping the site.

• Remove sediment prior to any stormwater runoff leaving the site using appropriate BMPs.

• Handle and dispose of all on-site pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris in 

accordance with sound practice to avoid contamination of stormwater.
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 1 4

APRIL 2021

Resource Potential Mitigation and Best Management Practicesa

• Remove all waste oils and machinery fluids off-site when they are generated, and do not store 

any waste oils or fluids on-site.

• Apply chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides in accordance with sound practices to avoid 

loss of chemicals to stormwater runoff.

• Provide separate handling of highly turbid stormwater and contaminated wastewater.

• Maintain proper surface drainage to avoid unnecessary ponding.

• Discharge drain flow back into affected areas, including wetlands, if it is necessary to install 

seepage drains for fill embankments.

• Stabilize disturbed areas with native grass and plant species following construction.

• Before the start of construction, identify on-track vehicle machinery/maintenance, fueling 

locations, work staging and construction material stockpile areas, and develop in upland 

locations.

• Provide secondary containment equal to 150% of storage capacity for any on-site fuel storage.

• Cover and stabilize disturbed soil areas so they would not remain open to become a possible 

source of off-site sediment pollution (i.e., stormwater runoff or construction dust) for more 

than 7 days.

• Clearly mark clearing/grading limits with stakes/flagging or high visibility orange sediment 

fencing.

• Contain and regularly manage construction waste.

• Place and regularly maintain portable toilet facilities in the construction areas.

• Provide and implement wheel washing to remove particulate matter that vehicles would 

otherwise carry off-site.

• Remove particulate matter (mud and windblown dust) deposited on paved roadways.

Wetlands and Waterways Wetland mitigation estimates are presented in the DEIS in Table 4.15-5, with the range of 16-129 

acres for the Preferred Alternative. There is roughly an order-of-magnitude difference between 

the low and high estimates for the Preferred Alternative. In part, this is because a large amount of 

hydric soil occurs within the study area, and there is a high degree of uncertainty as to whether 

these hydric soils areas contain wetlands. The range in estimates is also large because the type of 

mitigation is unknown. The State of Oregon has finalized a new approach to compensatory 

mitigation, call the Aquatic Resources Mitigation Framework. This new approach to compensating 

for wetland and stream losses will be collaboratively implemented by the Oregon Department of 

State Lands (DSL), US Army Corps of Engineers-Portland District and the US EPA. Future projects 

requiring permits from the Oregon DSL or the Corps will be expected to conform to the State's new 

mitigation standards. 

It is likely that the Preferred Alternative would be implemented incrementally, and this should be 

factored into the overall mitigation strategy, whether using mitigation banks, project-specific 

mitigation or a combination of the two. Ultimately, the preferred solution for mitigation could be a 

combination of using wetland mitigation banks and project-specific mitigation.

Air Quality Construction contractors would have to meet applicable standards and BMPs, such as those listed 

in Section 4.14.6 of the Tier 1 EIS and potential additional BMPs for air quality including:

• Spraying haul roads with water to reduce dust and particulate matter emissions; 

• Maintaining construction equipment with required pollution-control devices; 

• Limit equipment idling to the extent practicable; and

• Restricting burning.
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 1 5

APRIL 2021

Resource Potential Mitigation and Best Management Practicesa

Energy No mitigation for operational energy use is currently proposed. 

The Project could be vulnerable to future effects related to climate change based on projections of 

increased storm intensity and duration, increased flood risks and increased risk of landslides. FRA 

and ODOT acknowledge that the future climate change effects could alter the function, sizing and 

operations of proposed Project infrastructure. For the proposed facilities to function as intended 

for their planned life spans, ODOT would design the proposed facilities to perform under the 

variable conditions expected as a result of climate change. For example, drainage culverts might 

need to be sized larger than warranted by existing conditions to accommodate more intense 

rainfall events and increased seasonal flows of surface water. Subsequent Tier 2 environmental 

studies would consider and implement climate change adaptation strategies, as appropriate.

a For each of the environmental resources considered in the EIS, Project-specific mitigation strategies for identified impacts would be considered 

and implemented as necessary during subsequent Tier 2 environmental studies. 

2.7 Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

The CEQ NEPA implementing regulations require federal agencies to identify the alternative or alternatives 

considered to be environmentally preferable, which is defined as “the alternative that will promote the 

national environmental policy as expressed in the NEPA, Section 101” (40 CFR 1505.2). Thus the 

“environmentally preferable alternative” means the alternative that causes the least damage to the 

physical environment; it also means the alternative that best protects, preserves and enhances historic, 

cultural and natural resources.

FRA considered the Build Alternatives, as well as the No Action Alternative, and weighed and balanced the 

environmental effects of each alternative. Based on the analyses documented in the Tier 1 Draft EIS and 

Final EIS, FRA determined that the adverse environmental impacts associated with the Selected Alternative 

would be less than those associated with Alternative 2, and benefits to ridership and communities would be 

higher. The Selected Alternative would rely on existing railroad right-of-way for much of the route between 

Eugene and Portland, with focused rail infrastructure improvements in expanded right-of-way where 

needed. Compared to Alternative 2, which would require a largely new route for the entire alignment, the 

Selected Alternative would require less property acquisition and construction activity, resulting in fewer 

impacts to many resources, including farmland, protected species and their habitats, wetlands and 

waterways, and land use, and fewer potential residential displacements and access disruptions. The 

No Action Alternative would not meet the Project’s Purpose and Need, nor would it result in the benefits 

associated with the Selected Alternative, such as reduced air quality emissions, reduced energy 

consumption, and improved travel options and reliability.

FRA has determined that the Selected Alternative would result in the least overall impacts to the human 

and natural environment, while meeting the Purpose and Need of the Project, and is therefore 

environmentally preferable. 

2.8 FRA Decision

Based on the consideration of the information presented in the DEIS and this combined FEIS and ROD, FRA 

selects Alternative 1 (the Preferred Alternative as presented in the DEIS and FEIS, and as described in the 

above sections of this ROD). Currently, there is no FRA funding or approval associated with advancing the 

Project toward or through final design or construction.

Having carefully considered the environmental record noted above, the mitigation strategies described 

herein, the written and oral comments offered by agencies and the public on this record, and the written 

responses to the comments, FRA has determined that the Selected Alternative represents the best option 

for the Project and includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the environment. With this 

Record of Decision, FRA selects Alternative 1. 
TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION

Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 2 - 1 6

APRIL 2021

This page intentionally left blank.